4 ms·

he wasn't deported, he was legally in the US and then randomly got kidnapped by the US Federal Government, who then paid the El Salvadorian government to him pu

he wasn't deported, he was legally in the US and then randomly got kidnapped by the US Federal Government, who then paid the El Salvadorian government to him put in a super maximum security prison for no reason, indefinitely. the US government is now refusing to comply with a court order to bring him back. the US media has absolutely no ability (or interest) in grappling with the reality of the situation they have helped cause.

ranger_danger 2y ago
> indefinitely According to who? Why do you think this is somehow the case? The contract between the two countries is only for 1 year, and that doesn't mean everyone will even stay there that long. In what scenario does indefinite detention make any realistic sense even for the best-case scenario of its intended purpose i.e. rightfully-deported violent criminals? Do you honestly think the US is actually sending anyone to indefinite detention who has not received a life sentence in court? I'm not saying what's going on isn't wrong or that there aren't other huge problems with it, but your response to me just seems even more out of touch with reality than the current situation itself. The biggest problem I personally have with this is the administration's complete lack of empathy. Not once has anybody in the executive branch apologized for wrongly deporting anyone, made any attempt at saying they should be brought back, or that they were going to try, or that they even wanted to try. Instead they're seemingly actively doing everything they can to prevent lifting any useful fingers whatsoever.
- sorcerer-mar 2y ago
  > The contract between the two countries is only for 1 year, and that doesn't mean everyone will even stay there that long. Where did you see this contract? I follow quite a few lawyers in this space who have been asking to see said contract and AFAIK it hasn't been produced. Can you link to it please? > Do you honestly think the US is actually sending anyone to indefinite detention who has not received a life sentence in court? Uhh... yes? This person hasn't just not received a life sentence, they weren't even charged.
  - generj 2y ago
    The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract, let alone if it applies to the prisoner in this case. I think the judge is beyond frustrated and I would expect contempt charges to start flying pretty quickly, particularly after the government seems to keep flaunting her orders.
    - majorchord 2y ago
      > The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract Source?
      - johnnyanmac 2y ago
        Hard to prove something's lack of existeance. But from what I roughly understand, Xinis own documents don't have direct reference to a contract. They rely on AP's reporting of such a contract. So it's legally pretty ephemeral as of now. Yet another law brokenm since such foreign treaties and contracts should be publicly documeted. But what does that matter at this point?
  - ty6853 2y ago
    It was in the defenses own filing. I don't have the link off hand but look up last week's filing of the case and they dug up that the contract was for 1 year, after which the US will decide the disposition of the prisoners. They used it as part of their argument that the US still maintains control over the prisoners, since the contract stated the US has control over their disposition. It should be findable on either PACER or court listener, although all the ones I read were pdf from various news articles.
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      FYI because it can be misleading here, "the defense" is Kristi Noem/DHS/the US Government. Kilmar Garcia has never been charged with a crime and is not a defendant in any case whatsoever. He is a kidnapping victim who is suing his kidnapper. Into the main topic: I looked and don't see any such filing. I can find references to a memo from El Salvador claiming that it's 1 year for $6 million. I can't find a contract though, so the evidence suggests no such contract has been produced. Curious if you're willing to link directly to it though! Here's what the aforementioned filing states: > According to a memorandum issued by El Salvador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the agreement provides that the detainees will be held “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” I.e. referencing a memo, not a contract. This is unusual/illegal as any contract that USG signs over $25,000 must be reported.
- ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
  If it isn't "indefinitely", then did they specify his return date?
- alabastervlog 2y ago
  El Salvador's government has stated they have no intention to ever release inmates from CECOT—it's permanent. They have no rehabilitation programs and do not intend to establish such. There is no intent that the prisoners ever leave. The plan with these US-sourced prisoners may be different from the ones El Salvador put there themselves, but apparently that's entirely up to Bukele now. [EDIT] And regardless, "who knows when?" is indefinite.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    Garcia's defense argues the opposite as you and claim it is a one year contract with disposition at the discretion of the US. In fact a large portion of their argument relies on this claim as it's their basis as to why the US has meaningful control over his fate.
    - alabastervlog 2y ago
      Yes, and the administration has said they in-fact have no control (they very likely do, but evidently don't plan to use it). It would be very nice indeed if the defense's assertions were treated as true by anyone with power to fix this.
    - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
      Wrong. Garcia's defense claims that the Associated Press claims that a memo from El Salvador claims that it's a one year contract. No one has seen any such contract, which is legally required both to exist and to be publicly listed under US law.
      - ty6853 2y ago
        Judge Thacker's opinion was citing it. They are reflecting a contract based on evidence since the government has failed to properly record it. It just doesn't exist in the form you'd like, such as a written formal contract entered into the record. Quite often contracts are never 'seen' and instead prosecution surrounding them involve gathering evidence, in this case including 'memos' and direct statements of heads of state.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
  If he was being held under that contract, then it wouldn't be correct for the DoJ lawyers to say he's outside of US jurisdiction. But they keep claiming that he's under El Salvador's jurisdiction. They say they can't ask for him back, it's out of their hands. That's fundamentally incompatible with the idea that El Salvador is holding him at their direction and under a limited time contract.
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    > then it wouldn't be correct Indeed. And then what would be the point of the contract? Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free, even El Salvador, that just Does Not Compute (TM). I would much prefer to assume the DOJ is simply lying and that they are wrong, as to me that seems extremely likely.
- Volundr 2y ago
  > According to who? Why do you think this is somehow the case? Bukele says he doesn't forsee ever releasing anyone from CEDOT and has specifically ruled out doing so in this case. Trump says he's powerless to get him released. > In what scenario does indefinite detention make any realistic sense even for the best-case scenario of its intended purpose i.e. rightfully-deported violent criminals? Slave labor, which is what the people in CEDOT are being used for, again per their own president. > Do you honestly think the US is actually sending anyone to indefinite detention who has not received a life sentence in court? Yes! That's the whole problem!
  - ranger_danger 2y ago
    > Bukele says he doesn't forsee ever releasing anyone from CEDOT He has released 8,000 people in the last 3 years. https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/bukele-reconoce-8%2e000-inocentes-liberados-en-la-%22guerra%22-antipandillas-en-el-salvador/88121454 https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/bukele-reconoce-8%2e000-inocent...
    - Volundr 2y ago
      And yet Bukele's Justice Minister (sorry misremembered not Bukele himself) has said they will "never return to their communities" and somehow we are unable to get back this one man. Saying everyone is lying to openly defy a Supreme Court order when they can get him back anytime just by asking, and he'll be released "sometime" is not the comfort you seem think it should be. https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-us-rubio-prison-de912f6a8199aaa7c8490585dcaa3b87 https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-us-rubio-prison-de912...
      - ranger_danger 2y ago
        Sorry if I don't believe the "world's coolest dictator"'s administration whose actions disprove their words.
        Volundr 2y ago
        I mean I don't trust the guy either, and readily acknowledge he may be lying or even could just change his mind at any moment. That doesn't somehow make the situation better. We have a bunch of people now held at the whims of a capricious dictator, and our own leader is sending them more people, and suggesting sending our citizens, while claiming it's impossible to fix any mistakes, because "who knows what that guy will do, I can't control him"

ranger_danger 2y ago

> indefinitely According to who? Why do you think this is somehow the case? The contract between the two countries is only for 1 year, and that doesn't mean everyone will even stay there that long. In what scenario does indefinite detention make any realistic sense even for the best-case scenario of its intended purpose i.e. rightfully-deported violent criminals? Do you honestly think the US is actually sending anyone to indefinite detention who has not received a life sentence in court? I'm not saying what's going on isn't wrong or that there aren't other huge problems with it, but your response to me just seems even more out of touch with reality than the current situation itself. The biggest problem I personally have with this is the administration's complete lack of empathy. Not once has anybody in the executive branch apologized for wrongly deporting anyone, made any attempt at saying they should be brought back, or that they were going to try, or that they even wanted to try. Instead they're seemingly actively doing everything they can to prevent lifting any useful fingers whatsoever.

sorcerer-mar 2y ago
> The contract between the two countries is only for 1 year, and that doesn't mean everyone will even stay there that long. Where did you see this contract? I follow quite a few lawyers in this space who have been asking to see said contract and AFAIK it hasn't been produced. Can you link to it please? > Do you honestly think the US is actually sending anyone to indefinite detention who has not received a life sentence in court? Uhh... yes? This person hasn't just not received a life sentence, they weren't even charged.
- generj 2y ago
  The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract, let alone if it applies to the prisoner in this case. I think the judge is beyond frustrated and I would expect contempt charges to start flying pretty quickly, particularly after the government seems to keep flaunting her orders.
  - majorchord 2y ago
    > The government thus far refuses to even admit there is a contract Source?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Hard to prove something's lack of existeance. But from what I roughly understand, Xinis own documents don't have direct reference to a contract. They rely on AP's reporting of such a contract. So it's legally pretty ephemeral as of now. Yet another law brokenm since such foreign treaties and contracts should be publicly documeted. But what does that matter at this point?
- ty6853 2y ago
  It was in the defenses own filing. I don't have the link off hand but look up last week's filing of the case and they dug up that the contract was for 1 year, after which the US will decide the disposition of the prisoners. They used it as part of their argument that the US still maintains control over the prisoners, since the contract stated the US has control over their disposition. It should be findable on either PACER or court listener, although all the ones I read were pdf from various news articles.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    FYI because it can be misleading here, "the defense" is Kristi Noem/DHS/the US Government. Kilmar Garcia has never been charged with a crime and is not a defendant in any case whatsoever. He is a kidnapping victim who is suing his kidnapper. Into the main topic: I looked and don't see any such filing. I can find references to a memo from El Salvador claiming that it's 1 year for $6 million. I can't find a contract though, so the evidence suggests no such contract has been produced. Curious if you're willing to link directly to it though! Here's what the aforementioned filing states: > According to a memorandum issued by El Salvador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the agreement provides that the detainees will be held “for one (1) year, pending the United States’ decision on [their] long term disposition.” I.e. referencing a memo, not a contract. This is unusual/illegal as any contract that USG signs over $25,000 must be reported.
ndsipa_pomu 2y ago
If it isn't "indefinitely", then did they specify his return date?
alabastervlog 2y ago
El Salvador's government has stated they have no intention to ever release inmates from CECOT—it's permanent. They have no rehabilitation programs and do not intend to establish such. There is no intent that the prisoners ever leave. The plan with these US-sourced prisoners may be different from the ones El Salvador put there themselves, but apparently that's entirely up to Bukele now. [EDIT] And regardless, "who knows when?" is indefinite.
- ty6853 2y ago
  Garcia's defense argues the opposite as you and claim it is a one year contract with disposition at the discretion of the US. In fact a large portion of their argument relies on this claim as it's their basis as to why the US has meaningful control over his fate.
  - alabastervlog 2y ago
    Yes, and the administration has said they in-fact have no control (they very likely do, but evidently don't plan to use it). It would be very nice indeed if the defense's assertions were treated as true by anyone with power to fix this.
  - sorcerer-mar 2y ago
    Wrong. Garcia's defense claims that the Associated Press claims that a memo from El Salvador claims that it's a one year contract. No one has seen any such contract, which is legally required both to exist and to be publicly listed under US law.
    - ty6853 2y ago
      Judge Thacker's opinion was citing it. They are reflecting a contract based on evidence since the government has failed to properly record it. It just doesn't exist in the form you'd like, such as a written formal contract entered into the record. Quite often contracts are never 'seen' and instead prosecution surrounding them involve gathering evidence, in this case including 'memos' and direct statements of heads of state.
sjsdaiuasgdia 2y ago
If he was being held under that contract, then it wouldn't be correct for the DoJ lawyers to say he's outside of US jurisdiction. But they keep claiming that he's under El Salvador's jurisdiction. They say they can't ask for him back, it's out of their hands. That's fundamentally incompatible with the idea that El Salvador is holding him at their direction and under a limited time contract.
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  > then it wouldn't be correct Indeed. And then what would be the point of the contract? Nobody is going to hold prisoners from another country indefinitely for free, even El Salvador, that just Does Not Compute (TM). I would much prefer to assume the DOJ is simply lying and that they are wrong, as to me that seems extremely likely.
Volundr 2y ago
> According to who? Why do you think this is somehow the case? Bukele says he doesn't forsee ever releasing anyone from CEDOT and has specifically ruled out doing so in this case. Trump says he's powerless to get him released. > In what scenario does indefinite detention make any realistic sense even for the best-case scenario of its intended purpose i.e. rightfully-deported violent criminals? Slave labor, which is what the people in CEDOT are being used for, again per their own president. > Do you honestly think the US is actually sending anyone to indefinite detention who has not received a life sentence in court? Yes! That's the whole problem!
- ranger_danger 2y ago
  > Bukele says he doesn't forsee ever releasing anyone from CEDOT He has released 8,000 people in the last 3 years. https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/bukele-reconoce-8%2e000-inocentes-liberados-en-la-%22guerra%22-antipandillas-en-el-salvador/88121454 https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/bukele-reconoce-8%2e000-inocent...
  - Volundr 2y ago
    And yet Bukele's Justice Minister (sorry misremembered not Bukele himself) has said they will "never return to their communities" and somehow we are unable to get back this one man. Saying everyone is lying to openly defy a Supreme Court order when they can get him back anytime just by asking, and he'll be released "sometime" is not the comfort you seem think it should be. https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-us-rubio-prison-de912f6a8199aaa7c8490585dcaa3b87 https://apnews.com/article/el-salvador-us-rubio-prison-de912...
    - ranger_danger 2y ago
      Sorry if I don't believe the "world's coolest dictator"'s administration whose actions disprove their words.
      - Volundr 2y ago
        I mean I don't trust the guy either, and readily acknowledge he may be lying or even could just change his mind at any moment. That doesn't somehow make the situation better. We have a bunch of people now held at the whims of a capricious dictator, and our own leader is sending them more people, and suggesting sending our citizens, while claiming it's impossible to fix any mistakes, because "who knows what that guy will do, I can't control him"